Cost-utility analysis of TAVI compared with surgery in patients with severe aortic stenosis at low risk of surgical mortality in the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: There is growing evidence to support the benefits of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) over surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis (sSAS) who are at high- or intermediate-risk of surgical mortality. The PARTNER 3 trial showed clinical benefits with SAPIEN 3 TAVI compared with SAVR in patients at low risk of surgical mortality. Whether TAVI is also cost-effective compared with SAVR for low-risk patients in the Dutch healthcare system remains uncertain. This article presents an analysis using PARTNER 3 outcomes and costs data from the Netherlands to inform a cost-utility model and examine cost implications of TAVI over SAVR in a Dutch low-risk population. METHODS: A two-stage cost-utility analysis was performed using a published and validated health economic model based on adverse events with both TAVI and SAVR interventions from a published randomized low risk trial dataset, and a Markov model that captured lifetime healthcare costs and patient outcomes post-intervention. The model was adapted using Netherlands-specific cost data to assess the cost-effectiveness of TAVI and SAVR. Uncertainty was addressed using deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: TAVI generated 0.89 additional quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) at a €4742 increase in costs per patient compared with SAVR over a lifetime time horizon, representing an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of €5346 per QALY gained. Sensitivity analyses confirm robust results, with TAVI remaining cost-effective across several sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the model results, compared with SAVR, TAVI with SAPIEN 3 appears cost-effective for the treatment of Dutch patients with sSAS who are at low risk of surgical mortality. Qualitative data suggest broader societal benefits are likely and these findings could be used to optimize appropriate intervention selection for this patient population.

Cost and Utility Estimates per Modified Rankin Scale Score up to 2 Years Post Stroke: Data to Inform Economic Evaluations From a Societal Perspective.

OBJECTIVES: Model-based health economic evaluations of ischemic stroke are in need of cost- and utility estimates related to relevant outcome measures. This study aims to describe societal cost- and utility estimates per modified Rankin Scale (mRS)-score at different time points within 2 years post stroke. METHODS: Included patients had a stroke between 3 months and 2.5 years ago. mRS and EQ-5D-5L were scored during a telephone interview. Based on the interview date, records were categorized into a time point: 3 months (3M; 3-6 months), 1 year (Y1; 6-18 months), or 2 years (Y2; 18-30 months). Patients completed a questionnaire on healthcare utilization and productivity losses in the previous 3 months. Initial stroke hospitalization costs were assessed. Mean costs and utilities per mRS and time point were derived with multiple imputation nested in bootstrapping. Cost at 3 months post stroke were estimated separately for endovascular treatment (EVT)-/non-EVT-patients. RESULTS: 1106 patients were included from 18 Dutch centers. At each time point, higher mRS-scores were associated with increasing average costs and decreasing average utility. Mean societal costs at 3M ranged from €11 943 (mRS 1, no EVT) to €55 957 (mRS 5, no EVT). For Y1, mean costs in the previous 3 months ranged from €885 (mRS 0) to €23 215 (mRS 5), and from €1655 (mRS 0) to €22 904 (mRS 5) for Y2. Mean utilities ranged from 0.07 to 0.96, depending on mRS and time point. CONCLUSIONS: The mRS-score is a major determinant of costs and utilities at different post-stroke time points. Our estimates may be used to inform future model-based health economic evaluations.

Cost-effectiveness of endovascular treatment after 6-24 h in ischaemic stroke patients with collateral flow on CT-angiography: A model-based economic evaluation of the MR CLEAN-LATE trial.

BACKGROUND: The MR CLEAN-LATE trial has shown that patient selection for endovascular treatment (EVT) in the late window (6-24 h after onset or last-seen-well) based on the presence of collateral flow on CT-angiography is safe and effective. We aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of late-window collateral-based EVT-selection compared to best medical management (BMM) over a lifetime horizon (until 95 years of age). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A model-based economic evaluation was performed from a societal perspective in The Netherlands. A decision tree was combined with a state-transition (Markov) model. Health states were defined by the modified Rankin Scale (mRS). Initial probabilities at 3-months post-stroke were based on MR CLEAN-LATE data. Transition probabilities were derived from previous literature. Information on short- and long-term resource use and utilities was obtained from a study using MR CLEAN-LATE and cross-sectional data. All costs are expressed in 2022 euros. Costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were discounted at a rate of 4% and 1.5%, respectively. The effect of parameter uncertainty was assessed using probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA). RESULTS: On average, the EVT strategy cost €159,592 (95% CI: €140,830-€180,154) and generated 3.46 QALYs (95% CI: 3.04-3.90) per patient, whereas the costs and QALYs associated with BMM were €149,935 (95% CI: €130,841-€171,776) and 2.88 (95% CI: 2.48-3.29), respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per QALY and the incremental net monetary benefit were €16,442 and €19,710, respectively. At a cost-effectiveness threshold of €50,000/QALY, EVT was cost-effective in 87% of replications. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Collateral-based selection for late-window EVT is likely cost-effective from a societal perspective in The Netherlands.

Care Pathway Analysis to Inform the Earliest Stages of Technology Development: Scoping Oncological Indications in Need of Innovation.

OBJECTIVES: Identifying unmet needs for innovative solutions across disease contexts is challenging but important for directing funding and research efforts and informing early-stage decisions during the innovation process. Our aim was to study the merits of care pathway analysis to scope disease contexts and guide the development of innovative devices. We used oncologic surgery as a case study, for which many intraoperative imaging techniques are under development. METHODS: Care pathway analysis is a mapping process, which produces graphical maps of clinical pathways using important outcomes and subsequent consequences. We performed care pathway analyses for glioblastoma, breast, bladder, prostate, renal, pancreatic, and oral cavity cancer. Differences between a "perfect" care pathway and the current care pathway in terms of percentage of inadequate margins, associated recurrences, quality of life, and 5-year overall survival were calculated to determine unmet needs. Data from The Netherlands Cancer Registry and literature were used. RESULTS: Care pathway analysis showed that highest percentages of inadequate margins were found in oral cavity cancer (72.5%), glioblastoma (48.7%), and pancreatic cancer (43.9%). Inadequate margins showed the strongest increase in recurrences in cancer of oral cavity, and bladder (absolute increases of 43.5% and 41.2%, respectively). Impact on survival was largest for bladder and oral cavity cancer with positive margins. CONCLUSIONS: Care pathway analysis provides overviews of current clinical paths in multiple indications. Disease contexts can be compared via effectiveness gaps that show the potential need for innovative solutions. This information can be used as basis for stakeholder involvement processes to prioritize care pathways in need of innovation.

Study protocol for a multicenter randomised controlled trial on the (cost)effectiveness of biopsy combined with same-session MR-guided LITT versus biopsy alone in patients with primary irresectable glioblastoma (EMITT trial).

BACKGROUND: Glioblastoma (GBM) is the most common primary, malignant brain tumour with a 5-year survival of 5%. If possible, a glioblastoma is resected and further treated with chemoradiation therapy (CRT), but resection is not feasible in about 30% of cases. Current standard of care in these cases is a biopsy followed by CRT. Magnetic resonance (MR) imaging-guided laser interstitial thermal therapy (LITT) has been suggested as a minimally invasive alternative when surgery is not feasible. However, high-quality evidence directly comparing LITT with standard of care is lacking, precluding any conclusions on (cost-)effectiveness. We therefore propose a multicenter randomized controlled study to assess the (cost-)effectiveness of MR-guided LITT as compared to current standard of care (EMITT trial). METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The EMITT trial will be a multicenter pragmatic randomized controlled trial in the Netherlands. Seven Dutch hospitals will participate in this study. In total 238 patients will be randomized with 1:1 allocation to receive either biopsy combined with same-session MR-guided LITT therapy followed by CRT or the current standard of care being biopsy followed by CRT. The primary outcomes will be health-related quality of life (HR-QoL) (non-inferiority) using EORTC QLQ-C30 + BN20 scores at 5 months after randomization and overall survival (superiority). Secondary outcomes comprise cost-effectiveness (healthcare and societal perspective) and HR-QoL of life over an 18-month time horizon, progression free survival, tumour response, disease specific survival, longitudinal effects, effects on adjuvant treatment, ablation percentage and complication rates. DISCUSSION: The EMITT trial will be the first RCT on the effectiveness of LITT in patients with glioblastoma as compared with current standard of care. Together with the Dutch Brain Tumour Patient association, we hypothesize that LITT may improve overall survival without substantially affecting patients' quality of life. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05318612).

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards - Value of Information (CHEERS-VOI): Explanation and Elaboration.

OBJECTIVES: Although the ISPOR Value of Information (VOI) Task Force's reports outline VOI concepts and provide good-practice recommendations, there is no guidance for reporting VOI analyses. VOI analyses are usually performed alongside economic evaluations for which the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) 2022 Statement provides reporting guidelines. Thus, we developed the CHEERS-VOI checklist to provide reporting guidance and checklist to support the transparent, reproducible, and high-quality reporting of VOI analyses. METHODS: A comprehensive literature review generated a list of 26 candidate reporting items. These candidate items underwent a Delphi procedure with Delphi participants through 3 survey rounds. Participants rated each item on a 9-point Likert scale to indicate its relevance when reporting the minimal, essential information about VOI methods and provided comments. The Delphi results were reviewed at 2-day consensus meetings and the checklist was finalized using anonymous voting. RESULTS: We had 30, 25, and 24 Delphi respondents in rounds 1, 2, and 3, respectively. After incorporating revisions recommended by the Delphi participants, all 26 candidate items proceeded to the 2-day consensus meetings. The final CHEERS-VOI checklist includes all CHEERS items, but 7 items require elaboration when reporting VOI. Further, 6 new items were added to report information relevant only to VOI (eg, VOI methods applied). CONCLUSIONS: The CHEERS-VOI checklist should be used when a VOI analysis is performed alongside economic evaluations. The CHEERS-VOI checklist will help decision makers, analysts and peer reviewers in the assessment and interpretation of VOI analyses and thereby increase transparency and rigor in decision making.

A first exploration of the economic consequences of an autonomous surgical robot for lateral skull base surgery: an early health technology assessment.

OBJECTIVES: Lateral skull base procedures, such as translabyrinthine approach (TLA), are challenging. An autonomous surgical robot might be a solution to these challenges. Our aim is to explore in an early phase the economic consequences of an autonomous surgical robot compared with conventional TLA. METHODS: An early decision analytic model was constructed in order to perform a step-wise threshold analyses and a sensitivity analysis to analyze the impact of the several factors on the incremental costs. RESULTS: Using surgical robot results in incremental costs - EUR 5,562 per procedure - compared to conventional TLA. These costs are most reduced by higher number of procedures, followed by lower price of the robot, saved operation time, and reduced risk of complication, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The incremental costs of using an autonomous surgical robot can be decreased by choosing applications with a high turnover rate, a long operation time, and a high complication rate.

The potential value of disease-modifying therapy in patients with spinocerebellar ataxia type 1: an early health economic modeling study.

OBJECTIVE: There currently is no disease-modifying therapy for spinocerebellar ataxia type 1 (SCA1). Genetic interventions, such as RNA-based therapies, are being developed but those currently available are very expensive. Early evaluation of costs and benefits is, therefore, crucial. By developing a health economic model, we aimed to provide first insights into the potential cost-effectiveness of RNA-based therapies for SCA1 in the Netherlands. METHODS: We simulated disease progression of individuals with SCA1 using a patient-level state-transition model. Five hypothetical treatment strategies with different start and endpoints and level of effectiveness (5-50% reduction in disease progression) were evaluated. Consequences of each strategy were measured in terms of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), survival, healthcare costs, and maximum costs to be cost effective. RESULTS: Most QALYs (6.68) are gained when therapy starts during the pre-ataxic stage and continues during the entire disease course. Incremental costs are lowest (- €14,048) if therapy is stopped when the severe ataxia stage is reached. The maximum costs per year to be cost-effective are €19,630 in the "stop after moderate ataxia stage" strategy at 50% effectiveness. DISCUSSION: Our model indicates that the maximum price for a hypothetical therapy to be cost-effective is considerably lower than currently available RNA-based therapies. Most value for money can be gained by slowing progression in the early and moderate stages of SCA1 and by stopping therapy upon entering the severe ataxia stage. To allow for such a strategy, it is crucial to identify individuals in early stages of disease, preferably just before symptom onset.

The value of reducing arthroscopic partial meniscectomy in the treatment of degenerative meniscus tears: a budget impact analysis.

AIMS: Numerous studies have shown that arthroscopic partial meniscectomy (APM) is not (cost-) effective in patients with symptoms attributed to a degenerative meniscus tear. We aimed to assess the budget impact of reducing APM in routine clinical practice in this population. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A patient-level state transition model was developed to simulate patients recently diagnosed with a degenerative meniscus tear. Three strategies were compared: "current guideline" (i.e., postpone surgery to at least 3 months after diagnosis), "APM at any time" (i.e., APM available directly after diagnosis), and "nonsurgical" (i.e., APM no longer performed). Total societal costs over 5 years were calculated to determine the budget impact. Probabilistic and deterministic sensitivity analyses were conducted to address uncertainty. RESULTS: The average cost per patient over 5 years were EUR 5,077, EUR 4,577, and EUR 4,218, for the "APM at any time," "current guideline," and "nonsurgical" strategy, respectively. Removing APM from the treatment mix (i.e., 30,000 patients per year) in the Netherlands, resulted in a reduction in health care expenditures of EUR 54 million (95 percent confidence interval [CI] EUR 38 million-EUR 70 million) compared to the "current guideline strategy" and EUR 129 million (95 percent CI EUR 102 million-EUR 156 million) compared to the "APM at any time" strategy. Sensitivity analyses showed that uncertainty did not alter our conclusions. CONCLUSIONS: Substantial costs can be saved when APM is no longer performed to treat symptoms attributed to degenerative meniscus tears in the Netherlands. It is therefore recommended to further reduce the use of APM to treat degenerative meniscus tears.

Dealing With Uncertainty in Early Health Technology Assessment: An Exploration of Methods for Decision Making Under Deep Uncertainty.

OBJECTIVES: In early stages, the consequences of innovations are often unknown or deeply uncertain, which complicates early health economic modeling (EHEM). The field of decision making under deep uncertainty uses exploratory modeling (EM) in situations when the system model, input probabilities/distributions, and consequences are unknown or debated. Our aim was to evaluate the use of EM for early evaluation of health technologies. METHODS: We applied EM and EHEM to an early evaluation of minimally invasive endoscopy-guided surgery (MIS) for acute intracerebral hemorrhage and compared these models to derive differences, merits, and drawbacks of EM. RESULTS: EHEM and EM differ fundamentally in how uncertainty is handled. Where in EHEM the focus is on the value of technology, while accounting for the uncertainty, EM focuses on the uncertainty. EM aims to find robust strategies, which give relatively good outcomes over a wide range of plausible futures. This was reflected in our case study. EHEM provided cost-effectiveness thresholds for MIS effectiveness, assuming fixed MIS costs. EM showed that a policy with a population in which most patients had severe intracerebral hemorrhage was most robust, regardless of MIS effectiveness, complications, and costs. CONCLUSIONS: EHEM and EM were found to complement each other. EM seems most suited in the very early phases of innovation to explore existing uncertainty and many potential strategies. EHEM seems most useful to optimize promising strategies, yet EM methods are complex and might only add value when stakeholders are willing to consider multiple solutions to a problem and adopt flexible research and adoption strategies.

Identifying the Conditions for Cost-Effective Minimally Invasive Neurosurgery in Spontaneous Supratentorial Intracerebral Hemorrhage.

Background: In patients with spontaneous supratentorial intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH), open craniotomy has failed to improve a functional outcome. Innovative minimally invasive neurosurgery (MIS) may improve a health outcome and reduce healthcare costs. Aims: Before starting phase-III trials, we aim to assess conditions that need to be met to reach the potential cost-effectiveness of MIS compared to usual care in patients with spontaneous supratentorial ICH. Methods: We used a state-transition model to determine at what effectiveness and cost MIS would become cost-effective compared to usual care in terms of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and direct healthcare costs. Threshold and two-way sensitivity analyses were used to determine the minimal effectiveness and maximal costs of MIS, and the most cost-effective strategy for each combination of cost and effectiveness. Scenario and probabilistic sensitivity analyses addressed model uncertainty. Results: Given €10,000 of surgical costs, MIS would become cost-effective when at least 0.7-1.3% of patients improve to a modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score of 0-3 compared to usual care. When 11% of patients improve to mRS 0-3, surgical costs may be up to €83,301-€164,382, depending on the population studied. The cost-effectiveness of MIS was mainly determined by its effectiveness. In lower mRS states, MIS needs to be more effective to be cost-effective compared to higher mRS states. Conclusion: MIS has the potential to be cost-effective in patients with spontaneous supratentorial ICH, even with relatively low effectiveness. These results support phase-III trials to investigate the effectiveness of MIS.

Development of a decision analytical framework to prioritise operating room capacity: lessons learnt from an empirical example on delayed elective surgeries during the COVID-19 pandemic in a hospital in the Netherlands.

OBJECTIVE: To develop a prioritisation framework to support priority setting for elective surgeries after COVID-19 based on the impact on patient well-being and cost. DESIGN: We developed decision analytical models to estimate the consequences of delayed elective surgical procedures (eg, total hip replacement, bariatric surgery or septoplasty). SETTING: The framework was applied to a large hospital in the Netherlands. OUTCOME MEASURES: Quality measures impacts on quality of life and costs were taken into account and combined to calculate net monetary losses per week delay, which quantifies the total loss for society expressed in monetary terms. Net monetary losses were weighted by operating times. RESULTS: We studied 13 common elective procedures from four specialties. Highest loss in quality of life due to delayed surgery was found for total hip replacement (utility loss of 0.27, ie, 99 days lost in perfect health); the lowest for arthroscopic partial meniscectomy (utility loss of 0.05, ie, 18 days lost in perfect health). Costs of surgical delay per patient were highest for bariatric surgery (€31/pp per week) and lowest for arthroscopic partial meniscectomy (-€2/pp per week). Weighted by operating room (OR) time bariatric surgery provides most value (€1.19/pp per OR minute) and arthroscopic partial meniscectomy provides the least value (€0.34/pp per OR minute). In a large hospital the net monetary loss due to prolonged waiting times was €700 840 after the first COVID-19 wave, an increase of 506% compared with the year before. CONCLUSIONS: This surgical prioritisation framework can be tailored to specific centres and countries to support priority setting for delayed elective operations during and after the COVID-19 pandemic, both in and between surgical disciplines. In the long-term, the framework can contribute to the efficient distribution of OR time and will therefore add to the discussion on appropriate use of healthcare budgets. The online framework can be accessed via: https://stanwijn.shinyapps.io/priORitize/.

Methods for Early Assessment of the Societal Value of Health Technologies: A Scoping Review and Proposal for Classification.

OBJECTIVES: Early assessments of health technologies help to better align and integrate their development and assessment. Such assessments can take many forms and serve different purposes, hampering users in their selection of the most appropriate method for a specific goal. The aim of this scoping review was to structure the large set of methods according to their specific goal. METHODS: A scoping review was conducted using PubMed and reference lists of retrieved articles, to identify review studies with a methodological focus. From the included reviews, all individual methods were listed. Based on additional literature and examples, we extracted the specific goal of each method. All goals were clustered to derive a set of subclasses and methods were grouped into these subclasses. RESULTS: Of the 404 screened, 5 reviews were included, and 1 was added when searching reference lists. The reviews described 56 methods, of which 43 (77%) were included and classified as methods to (1) explore the nature and magnitude of the problem, (2) estimate the nature and magnitude of the expected (societal) value, (3) identify conditions for the potential value to materialize, and (4) help develop and design the type of research that is needed. CONCLUSIONS: The wide range of methods for exploring the societal value of health technologies at an early stage of development can be subdivided into a limited number of classes, distinguishing methods according to their specific objective. This facilitates selection of appropriate methods, depending on the specific needs and aims.

Understanding the Costs of Surgery: A Bottom-Up Cost Analysis of Both a Hybrid Operating Room and Conventional Operating Room.

BACKGROUND: Over the past decade, many hospitals have adopted hybrid operating rooms (ORs). As resources are limited, these ORs have to prove themselves in adding value. Current estimations on standard OR costs show great variety, while cost analyses of hybrid ORs are lacking. Therefore, this study aims to identify the cost drivers of a conventional and hybrid OR and take a first step in evaluating the added value of the hybrid OR. METHODS: A comprehensive bottom-up cost analysis was conducted in five Dutch hospitals taking into account: construction, inventory, personnel and overhead costs by means of interviews and hospital specific data. The costs per minute for both ORs were calculated using the utilization rates of the ORs. Cost drivers were identified by sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: The costs per minute for the conventional OR and the hybrid OR were €9.45 (€8.60-€10.23) and €19.88 (€16.10- €23.07), respectively. Total personnel and total inventory costs had most impact on the conventional OR costs. For the hybrid OR the costs were mostly driven by utilization rate, total inventory and construction costs. The results were incorporated in an open access calculation model to enable adjustment of the input parameters to a specific hospital or country setting. CONCLUSION: This study estimated a cost of €9.45 (€8.60-€10.23) and €19.88 (€16.10-€23.07) for the conventional and hybrid OR, respectively. The main factors influencing the OR costs are: total inventory costs, total construction costs, utilization rate, and total personnel costs. Our analysis can be used as a basis for future research focusing on evaluating value for money of this promising innovative OR. Furthermore, our results can inform surgeons, and decision and policy-makers in hospitals on the adoption and optimal utilization of new (hybrid) ORs.

Robot-assisted Versus Open Radical Cystectomy in Bladder Cancer: An Economic Evaluation Alongside a Multicentre Comparative Effectiveness Study.

BACKGROUND: Open radical cystectomy (ORC) is regarded as the standard treatment for muscle-invasive bladder cancer, but robot-assisted radical cystectomy (RARC) is increasingly used in practice. A recent study showed that RARC resulted in slightly fewer minor but slightly more major complications, although the difference was not statistically significant. Some differences were found in secondary outcomes favouring either RARC or ORC. RARC use is expected to increase in coming years, which fuels the debate about whether RARC provides value for money. OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost-effectiveness of RARC compared to ORC in bladder cancer. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This economic evaluation was performed alongside a prospective multicentre comparative effectiveness study. We included 348 bladder cancer patients (ORC, n = 168; RARC, n = 180) from 19 Dutch hospitals. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Over 1 yr, we assessed the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained from both healthcare and societal perspectives. We used single imputation nested in the bootstrap percentile method to assess missing data and uncertainty, and inverse probability of treatment weighting to control for potential bias. Deterministic sensitivity analyses were performed to explore the impact of various parameters on the cost difference. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The mean healthcare cost per patient was €17 141 (95% confidence interval [CI] €15 791-€18 720) for ORC and €21 266 (95% CI €19 163-€23 650) for RARC. The mean societal cost per patient was €18 926 (95% CI €17 431-€22 642) for ORC and €24 896 (95% CI €21 925-€31 888) for RARC. On average, RARC patients gained 0.79 QALYs (95% CI 0.74-0.85) compared to 0.81 QALYs (95% CI 0.77-0.85) for ORC patients, resulting in a mean QALY difference of -0.02 (95% CI -0.05 to 0.02). Using a cost-effectiveness threshold of €80 000, RARC was cost-effective in 0.6% and 0.2% of the replications for the healthcare and societal perspectives, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: RARC shows no difference in terms of QALYs, but is more expensive than ORC. Hence, RARC does not seem to provide value for money in comparison to ORC. PATIENT SUMMARY: This study assessed the relation between costs and effects of robot-assisted surgery compared to open surgery for removal of the bladder in 348 Dutch patients with bladder cancer. We found that after 1 year, the two approaches were similarly effective according to a measure called quality-adjusted life years, but robot-assisted surgery was much more expensive. This trial was prospectively registered in the Netherlands Trial Register as NTR5362 (https://www.trialregister.nl/trial/5214).